1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Hillarycare

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by Spoid, Sep 17, 2007.

  1. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wiiprii @ Sep 17 2007, 06:10 PM) [snapback]513930[/snapback]</div>
    Why not just health insurance for those that want? Or do you force everyone to purchase health insurance? And what about mandates - do you force people to buy coverage for stuff they dont want or need?

    Why not let insurance companies sell different levels of coverage and policies that cover what their customer wants to buy?

    Why not let the individual gain the tax benefit from purchasing their own health insurance policy instead of their employer?

    Do you believe the government should control your access to health care?

    Do you want the government to know EVERYTHING about you including your dna pattern?

    Should health care be rationed by the government?

    And you would deny care to a person in a life or death situation because they were not a US citizen and they did not have health care insurance?????? that would be a step back from todays level of care.
     
  2. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Allannde @ Sep 17 2007, 07:33 PM) [snapback]513980[/snapback]</div>
    Why is it bad to spend what we spend on health care?

    And how are you measuring outcomes - have you looked at cancer survival rates comparing the US with Britain or Canada - or heart disease survival rates - you might want to compare apples with apples (pun intended) - using subjective comparisons are not as accurate as looking at a patient who gets breast cancer at the same age and the same stage and seeing the difference in survivals the US vs any other country.

    You must also add into the mix the high % of illegals here who do not get routine care for obvious reasons and other demographic differences we have that other smaller countries do not have.

    I doubt we could do better for less money - and i would argue that any socialized plan would cost more, deliver less and subject us to rationing instead of progress.
     
  3. douglas001001

    douglas001001 smug doug

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    222
    5
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Insurance shouldn't be for routine maintenance and doctors visits, this just adds costs shipping and processing all the paperwork back and forth. If you have an individual plan, it is better to just pay cash for routine care and negotiate your own rate, keep the receipts, then submit them to the insurance company when you hit your deductible.

    Everyone having access to insurance doesn't make healthcare cheaper for the group as a whole, the way heathcare gets cheaper is to reduce lawsuits, processing of paperwork, give doctors incentives to lower their fees, and give pharmacutical companies incentives to lower drug costs.

    What about tax breaks to doctors who volunteer at free clinics? Do things like that to get costs lower, instead of coming up with new ways to put more costs and administration fees into an already screwed up system.
     
  4. roryjr

    roryjr Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    227
    0
    0
    Location:
    Warrenton, NC
    I must add this. Hillary requires health care coverage for everyone. I got out of the Navy in 1992. Since then, I have seen the doctor only once (I had pink eye), and only then because that was the only way to get the medicine I needed. I paid out of pocket because I did not have health insurance. No one stopped me from getting it. It was available from my job. I just did not want to pay for it. I was young and almost never went to the doctor anyway. I took the risk voluntarily. Now that I have a wife and child, I do have it because my responsibilities differ.

    Why require people to take or buy something that they don't want?
     
  5. hycamguy07

    hycamguy07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    2,707
    2
    0
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patrickindallas @ Sep 17 2007, 06:01 PM) [snapback]513922[/snapback]</div>
    Nope I think we should move them into your house.... :D ;)


    Another point that should be brought up is to look at the present level of care provided to the patients. Those areas of goverment PAID healthcare really get horrible treatment. Oh poo wheres that article...... :mellow:


    Granted this is for minor cosmedic surgery and the like .
    But see below.
    Oh but what do I know Im just another mixed up FLORIDIAN ;)
    Happy reading, :rolleyes: ;) :)
     
  6. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Sep 18 2007, 12:10 PM) [snapback]514314[/snapback]</div>
    I agree. Should not people have the right to choose not to pay for health insurance? How about the right to purchase the type of insurance they want to to cover the things they want to cover -- mandates are killing health care.
     
  7. MarkMN

    MarkMN New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    226
    0
    0
    Location:
    Downtown Minneapolis
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Sep 18 2007, 11:10 AM) [snapback]514314[/snapback]</div>

    Lucky you. If you got in a serious accident when you didn't have health insurance, your kids and wife would be affected now, as would you. The reason to require people to have healthcare insurance is because accidents can happen to anyone, no matter how young and healthy, and when said accident occurs, it can be financially devastating to both current assets and future income. Also, many illnesses show-up in healthy people during regular screenings when they are the most treatable. The outwardly young and healthy individual could have a disease that he/she is unaware of, and by discouraging a yearly doctors checkup, that disease can progress and become harder to treat later when it is causing the body to be sick.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Sep 18 2007, 11:25 AM) [snapback]514324[/snapback]</div>
    The Goldwater Institute is a partisan organization with no objectivity in their opinion or statements. I will not bother wasting my time reading their opinions.
     
  8. Spoid

    Spoid New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    286
    0
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(douglas001001 @ Sep 18 2007, 08:51 AM) [snapback]514303[/snapback]</div>
    I couldn't agree more. We need to keep in mind that every insurance transaction has a minimum cost associated with it just to process it. If we reduce those, that will reduce our overall cost.

    It also reduces abuse of the system. I know people who get 800mg ibuprofin prescriptions. With a cheap co-pay, it is cheaper to get the prescription filled rather than buy some 200mg pills and take 4. The insurance company pays the difference.

    Also, as long as insurance companies are willing to pay high prices for prescriptions, the prices will remain high. I got a plan without a drug benefit. I talked to my doctor about switching my drugs to one of those on Walmart's $4 plan and we found one that would work. With a drug benefit, I wouldn't be encouraged to reduce my costs.
     
  9. Allannde

    Allannde Just a Senior

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    874
    138
    0
    Location:
    Washington State
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Advanced
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Sep 18 2007, 08:10 AM) [snapback]514314[/snapback]</div>
    Because people show up at Emergency Care for free attention which then becomes a hidden expense for the rest of us.


    The issue has little to do with the fortunate young and healthy. Those who do not have routine health maintenance get horribly sick when the rest of us just shake it off. Expenses get astronomic near the end of life when ever that comes.

    We are approaching the reality the the average lifetime health care cost is greater than the average lifetime income.

    That is why it matters that we spend so much.

    That is why this is no longer just an academic debate!
     
  10. hycamguy07

    hycamguy07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    2,707
    2
    0
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

    http://healthcare-economist.com/category/i...h-care-systems/

    Universal Health Care: No Sick Joke
    Small businesses—and large—have trouble attracting the best job candidates because of the high price of health care. Entrepreneurship demands nationalized medical insurance. Pro or con?
    http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/?ch..._top+news+index

    The bottom line here can be summed up into one word "GREED"

    this is why everything costs so much. Place a cap on everything and see what happens!
     
  11. Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    922
    13
    1
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Well this is one of those Democrat ideas that sounds good and is hard to argue against in principle, but in execution usually just leads to a new bloated government bureaucracy.

    As far as Hillary's plan to "Tax the Rich" that b*?! can go perform a certain sexual relations with herself. The "rich" aren't going to stand for it and this is no more than class warfare, perpetuated AS ALWAYS, by the Demoncrats.

    If you want to look at, at least a rational plan for universal care, check out Dems, Mike Gravel. At least he isn't a race bating, class warfare mongering, female canine.

    P.S. on Mike "Gravel2008" website I pretty much disagree with about everything he say, but the health care issues at least rational and potentially workable as it doesn't rely on bloated government.
     
  12. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,562
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Economic theory suggests national health care is a perfect natural monopoly. The bigger the risk pool, the lower the overall risk, and the lower the individual premium. The more insurance companies there are, the greater the overhead, and the higher the overall cost. A significant portion of a private insurer's efforts go to denying people coverage, in order to decrease its costs. What we have now are profit centres, not health centres. A national plan could invest in preventive medicine, something a private company is not motivated to do. An annual physical and mental checkup could save many lives and huge amounts of money. The whole nation could be happier, healthier, and more productive. Instead, we have nasty political battles over who gets the money.
     
  13. IsrAmeriPrius

    IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    4,333
    7
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008213" target="_blank">Mitt Romney
    <div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>40% of the uninsured were earning enough to buy insurance but had chosen not to do so. Why? Because it is expensive, and because they know that if they become seriously ill, they will get free or subsidized treatment at the hospital. By law, emergency care cannot be withheld. Why pay for something you can get free?

    Of course, while it may be free for them, everyone else ends up paying the bill, either in higher insurance premiums or taxes.
    [/quote]

    Romney's Mission: Massachusetts Health Care

     
  14. Allannde

    Allannde Just a Senior

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    874
    138
    0
    Location:
    Washington State
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Advanced
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 18 2007, 10:55 AM) [snapback]514414[/snapback]</div>
    Good Job HS! That boils down a whole lot of things into an understandable picture.

    It is much more important for us to find a workable solution than to win a debate.

    This thread gives me hope that it can be done.
     
  15. Spoid

    Spoid New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    286
    0
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 18 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]514414[/snapback]</div>
    What you're missing is competition, which makes the market efficient. Take, for example, the two Germanys before unification. One made world class cars which were extremely competitive in the world market. The other had state run car manufacturers. Can you even name an East German car? They were some of the worst vehicles around. They polluted so bad the EPA would not let you import one into the US.

    Profit is a great motive to provide excellent service. Insurance companies do not exist to deny claims. Any company that just denied claims would find itself out of business and another company would take its business. While we do hear about companies that deny claims, that is the exception, rather than the rule. We hear the same stories about the Social Security administration or the IRS.

    I had an ACL reconstruction in my right knee last year and I had no problems with the insurance company. I was able to use one a highly regarded surgeon, got all the physical therapy I needed, and was satisfied with the results. There were some problems with billing, but they were solved with a phone call.

    The government is a horrendous bureaucracy. We get terrible returns on our Social Security dollars. Or perhaps you would like to go to the VA where they leave the soldiers sitting in there excrement.

    No thanks. I want to go to a facility that competes for my business.
     
  16. Allannde

    Allannde Just a Senior

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    874
    138
    0
    Location:
    Washington State
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Advanced
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Sep 18 2007, 01:46 PM) [snapback]514502[/snapback]</div>
    Spoid, you make a valid point as most of us agree. The upside of competition is that it does what you say. The downside of competition is that it leads to wasteful duplication of terribly expensive infrastructure for high traffic needs and ignoring of low traffic needs. That is good for common ailments and terrible for rare ailments.

    Besides, competition favors over capacity of the healthcare system and we are so far removed from that, that it is pitiful. Your insistence on competition has the effect of either greatly increaseing the cost of health care, denying care to a whole lot of people or both.

    What you (and we all) want is quality care. We just must find workable ways to achieve that.
     
  17. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,562
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Competition's not the holy grail it's made out to be in business school. In the case of insurance, as soon as the risk pool is split up into smaller groups, the risk profile for each group is altered, and some of them will pay higher rates than they would otherwise. If the same premiums were charged for a lower risk group and the difference is taken out as profit, the higher risk groups either pay more, or lose coverage. This is less efficient. Having a multitude of insurance companies, each with buildings to maintain and staff to pay, is more expensive. A single buyer of prescription drugs could negotiate lower prices with the manufacturer. Renewing the contracts of service providers every few years would provide the same incentive to trim costs as competition, without the inherent additional expenses. Be a champion of free enterprise if you like, but that has nothing to do with delivering the best quality health care at the lowest overall cost.
     
  18. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    19,604
    8,036
    54
    Location:
    Montana & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patrickindallas @ Sep 17 2007, 06:01 PM) [snapback]513922[/snapback]</div>
    While quoting, don't forget, "if a man does not work, neither shal he eat" ... or get free meds. But if YOU want to feed and heal and house the whold world, lets break all of you folks off who want to reward illegal entry into the country (ect), than go for it. See how long 'till your group is broke. Similarly, if you want to house all the death row folks rather than provide 20 years of appeals, set up your own tax pork barrel system, and keep the other 85 + per cent of the voting nation away from you.
     
  19. Spoid

    Spoid New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    286
    0
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 18 2007, 05:31 PM) [snapback]514567[/snapback]</div>
    So what you are saying is we would be better off with only once insurance company rather than the individual companies we have now. So if I want term life insurance, I'd be better off with one company rather than having to choose between several? What would be the incentive of that one company to provide the lowest cost service? Where is the incentive for them to provide innovative programs?

    The other problem is congress. They love meddling in the affairs of our government to bring more money to their states. For example, congress mandated that the Pentagon develop a second engine for the joint strike fighter. The Pentagon said no, that's a waste of money. Congress won and money is now spent in other states bring fame and fortune to those congressmen.

    While you are correct that there is duplication of effort, we often see the smaller companies being first to market with new and innovative products because of less bureaucracy. Look at the computer industry! We have small companies coming up with products that whomp on the big ones. In the early 80s, nobody would have believed Microsoft would become such a powerhouse and Digital would become a footnote in history.

    I've seen these single pay plans, like in Canada. I'm not willing to wait 3-4 months for an MRI. I think it is terrible that in some provinces that it is illegal for you to go outside of the system. But this is good for the companies on the US side of the border who sell their services to Canadians.

    Monopoly is one of my favorite games, but I'm not willing to play games with our health care system.
     
  20. echase

    echase New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    227
    6
    0
    A major problem with all health insurance is that's it's like a buffet, once you have met your deductable (or annual out ofpoket maximum) it's often all-you can eat.

    I'd like to see some kind of hybrid helth care plan... check it out:

    Provide universal coverage under a single-payer plan, that only kicks in after a certain (very high) deductable is met. This plan would be subsidized for lower income citizens. This covers the duty of a civil society to care for all of its city and makes liberals get all warm inside.

    Plan rewards patients for seeking out lower-cost health care, and for under-utilizing health-care services. This is accomplished by actually paying back (like a tax refund) those who use less than a certain threshold of dollars per year, or those who negotiate less than the standard rates for needed procedures. The free market kicks in and takes care of the rest. This helps Repubicans feel like they just ate a little blue pill.

    It's just a rough idea. Somone with more potential to actually implement such a plan should flesh out the details.

    BTW: I think Dubbya's HSA laws are pure genius. Perhaps his only sign of intellegence ever, but a very bright one nonetheless.